Posted on 05/24/2005 11:39:04 AM PDT by dukeman
NO INTRODUCTION NEEDED FOR THIS DU THREAD:
(1000+ posts) Sat May-21-05 02:15 PM
Original message
Should religious display be banned in public?
I think most of us would agree that we're having a national problem with rampant religiosity, and that if we don't figure out how to solve it in a permanent way we're going to end up with a pseudo-theocracy as our form of government.
There are scriptural exhortations to make one's prayer and religious affilation a private matter. So: how about making public religious display a misdemeanor?
It would be similar to drinking alcoholic bevvies in public, or driving without having your licence with you, or having a bonk in the bushes. If you go around wearing a visible cross/magen david/pentagram/whatever, or handing out tracts, or walking up to strangers and asking whether they're 'saved', then you get a ticket, a fine, and perhaps a scolding for a first offence. And if that doesn't work and you keep on doing it anyway, then after awhile maybe the court decides that you've won the prize of having your head read to see if you're wrapped tightly enough to be wandering around loose.
Let me emphasise this again: I'm talking about public display, not private practice. I'm not talking about making religious membership or practice itself an offence!!
The First Amendment guarantees that government isn't allowed to meddle with our religious practice. But the right to practice in public is not unbounded: one couldn't, for example, get away with holding an impromptu service using a bullhorn in the middle of a busy intersection or in an expensive neighborhood. So that would be the legal basis behind it: your religious choices cannot be messed with, but your public practice can be.
ProdigalJunkMail (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
2. there is a little problem with your idea
it's called the Constitution...something crazy about 'Congress shall make no law...' surrounding freedom of religious expression...the text says nothing about meddling...it says 'shall make no law.'
Do away with that little tenet of one of our founding documents and I think you might get it to work...
theProdigal
Inland (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
3. You don't think that's a restriction on speech?
So I could have my Nazi uniform on display on Hitler's Birthday but not a Christmas creche on my lawn?
Having trouble with your assessment of the problem and the solution.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #3
9. Yes, it is a restriction on speech.
But there are many such restrictions, the example I gave of the bullhorn being one of them.
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #9
16. Amazing...
walking off...shaking my head.
Simply amazing.
Maat (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #3
79. There ARE limitations on free speech.
I spend a year studying them.
If a statute is neutrally applied, government may regulate the time, place and manner of speech (e.g. the bullhorn, permits, etc.). Government may also regulate the content if there is a compelling interest, the law is narrowly tailored, and alternate means of communication are available.
All that is EVER regulated is government sponsorship of religion, never private conversation or displays on private property (simply because of their content).
That's what this is typically about - government sponsorship of religion.
I refer DUers to "Lemon v. Kurtzman," the famous Supreme Court case.
Warpy (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
4. It's kind of a grey area
Would you strip the head scarves from Muslim women? Ban that gold cross from around the neck of a Christian? How about a group of people bowing their heads together in public, albeit quietly?
Religious nuisances are different from all of the above, and involve street corner preaching, something covered by free speech (alas) and for some people, creches in public parks and squares at Xmas. Fundies grumble about the menorahs in another part of the park, and Muslims grumble about all of it.
Personally, I have little problem with the temporary displays of creches and menorahs in the public parks, as long as my taxes don't pay for them. I do have a problem with permanent installations of Judaic law like Moore's huge ten commandments in a courthouse. Since the first three of those commandments tell a great many US citizens their relgions are forbidden, that is completely inappropriate. Having some loudmouth stand up in an official capacity and lead a prayer over any sort of amplified sound system at any public gathering is also a religious nuisance, and that's NOT protected by free speech.
The trouble with writing laws to cover all this stuff is that it gets down to so much haggling over what constitutes a nuisance and what does not. The original framers of the constitution realized that when they put in the anti establishment clause. The government may NOT fund any sort of religion, nor promote it at official functions.
If the Bill of Rights had been popular, it would never have been necessary. It's there to make sure the majority never tyrannizes the minority. That goes for the religious majority most of all.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #4
7. Good point on the 'grey area'
Would you strip the head scarves from Muslim women? Ban that gold cross from around the neck of a Christian? How about a group of people bowing their heads together in public, albeit quietly?
Probably not on the scarves. Scarves are worn by women to keep their hair neat, too, tho less today than when I was growing up. Of course, Muslim scarves are rather distinctive, so maybe it has to be decided by a court.
Definite yes on the cross: it's for sure a religious symbol more than jewellery. Hardly anyone except a Christian would wear one; a Jew or Muslim definitely wouldn't.
Definite no on the head-bowing. There's no way of knowing what's going on there, so we presume it's secular.
If the Bill of Rights had been popular, it would never have been necessary. It's there to make sure the majority never tyrannizes the minority.
um, not so. If you read the source documents you see that the BOR is there because it was so popular...except among the wealthy oligarchs who were drawing up the Constitution. Most of the colonial constitutions had a BOR already, and George Mason walked out of the Convention because Madison et al. were intent on not putting one into the federal one (which was a business contract more than anything else). It was really only because of their fears that too many of the states would refuse to ratify that Madison and the federalists finally knuckled under.
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #7
18. "We are in trouble". I agree with your sig line. With ideas like this..
coming from a member of a liberal forum...we ARE in trouble...
BIG trouble.
Veganistan (590 posts)
Response to Reply #18
147. EXACTLY!
How did the party of tolerance become so contemptuous of it? A legal system of the paradigm suggested would have to by logic exclude people from ALL visible expressions of speech. No more concert T-shirts, no more red hat ladies, no more Mexican or African colors or flags on your cars or clothes, no more political buttons, no more NBA and NFL fan gear.........
Yes, let's all be forced to wear state approved basic grey pajamas in public just because some people can't seem to handle someone wearing a cross around their neck.
Screw the constitution right? It's just so damn inconvenient.
kodi (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
6. "in public" isn't the same as "on public property," so redefine your terms
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #6
8. In public. In non-private space. Out on the sidewalk, in public
buildings, etc. If someone goes into a department store and puts on a burqa or hangs a half-kilo crucifix around their neck, it's up to the store. If they're still wearing it out on the sidewalk, they get a ticket.
Bok_Tukalo (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
12. Wow.
There is no possible way I would be on board for such a thing and would consider it the greatest threat to freedom America has seen since the Sedition Acts.
Unbelievable that it could even be considered. And I'm agnostic.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #13
17. Yes, I know all about the First Amendment!
But try to practice your religion in a way that offends, as in my bullhorn example. We are not guaranteed any of those rights without limit of context or occasion, no matter what the wording says. The right to free speech is the most sacred of them all, but it's a federal felony to, e.g., talk about harming the psychopath-in-chief, even as a joke.
(We place too much faith in the Bill Of Rights right now anyhow. There's no actual penalty for passing laws that infringe the hell out of them. The most that will happen is that the SCOTUS will wag a finger and say no-no. In consequence, I don't think there's even one of them that hasn't been nibbled at or frankly gutted.)
CAG (126 posts)
Response to Reply #17
23. Sickening idea....
You don't think a christian or a muslim or a jew would be "offended" by someone giving them, as you say, a ticket, just because they wore something that was deemed by someone to be religious???
Truly amazed that a so-called liberal would be not only throwing this out as a question, but continuing to explain it away as if its rational after several people have clearly shown you what an idiotic, sickening idea it is. This idea would be really popular in 1960's Soviet Union, however.
This type of anti-religion rhetoric is exactly the crap that the christian right and the talk-radio wingnuts take to their followers, and the mainstream by the way, and use it to demonstrate how "them libruls" want to burn the bible.
I'm sorry if your offended by someone wearing a cross around their neck. My advice to you is lighten up.
EST (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #23
151. She most certainly has the right and arguably even the
responsibility to post this most provocative of arguments-witness the number of replys! I didn't notice her taking sides, merely opening the issue for discussion and taking the logical step of debating it, especially since it was highly probable that many would scan it quickly and then attack. Brave.
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
15. Absolutely NOT, if by public you don't mean governmental....
Amazed to see such an affront to civil liberties on a liberal forum, quite frankly.
thebigidea (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
19. how about "Free Religion Zones" surrounded by barbed wire and riot gear?
sounds absolutely ghastly, but apparently such zones are ok when no Bibles are involved.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #24
28. What do you do about the bind?
You know, the democracy bind. The one where you have to decide do you follow the democratic principle of tolerance til the intolerant get their chance to take over, ship you off to the ovens, and put an end to democracy
...or do you violate democratic principles and ruthlessly suppress the intolerant in the name of preserving a society in which (almost) everyone is tolerated?
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #28
34. "Ruthlessly suppress the intolerant".
So, can I assume that you will be suppressing yourself...ruthlessly?
You see....YOU have become one of THEM. Congratulations.
Selatius (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #28
36. It is not a black or white issue as you set up the argument to be
Sorry, but I don't deal in absolutes.
Irrationality should be left to itself so long as reason is left to challenge it.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #36
45. It is, though.
So what happens when Irrationality ships Reason to the ovens?
Because that's the thing about intolerant people--they don't value reason or respect for other people. They DO ship people to the ovens.
Do you go to the ovens happy that you never lifted a hand in anger?
Selatius (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #115
116. Please clarify the question.
What exactly is it you are saying. Are you saying that tomorrow the purge could begin where people are rounded up and summarily executed for party affiliation?
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #116
120. "Are you saying that tomorrow the purge could begin?"
No, more that the first building-blocks of pseudo-theocratic authoritarianism have already been laid, and we have already suffered key losses from which we may never be able to recover. We know for sure we have already lost diversity in information. We have already lost a number of BOR guarantees, such as the right to assembly and meaningful political protest. And many of us strongly suspect that we have already lost mostly-honest elections, which are the only way to change things short of blood in the streets. We are currently watching the church/state wall being eroded, and an unabashed criminal imperialism that has no real parallel in our national history.
Imminence of the purges isn't the problem. Once they have us in the cage, they can easily wait til next week or even next year to start the purges, because by then we won't be going anywhere.
Selatius (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #120
125. The answer then is most definitely no
Am I angry about the church-state barrier being ruined? Do I find it appalling that the Senate and House would pass things such as the Patriot Act and Real ID? Do I find it saddening that election machines are totally outside the accountability of the people for the fact that they are now privately owned? Am I sickened at the stranglehold the corporate news media has over information? Do I find the war in Iraq a war built on injustice and fear?
Yes, I find all of this upsetting and enraging at times, and I agree with you here, but if you talk of war, of raising the fist against my neighbors, then the answer is most definitely no. You don't know what you ask for when you talk of war against your own government and its supporters. Is this what you are talking about?
What you are implying is bloodshed on American soil when we are not yet sure it had to come to that. You talk of doing something that will be seen by family and friends here on American soil. It will be seen by our children. It will not be seen on television 10,000 miles away on some distant field. It will be in our backyards and neighborhoods, and many innocent will die along with the rest of us. You have not seen war in your home like my family has, the pain and upheaval it brings.
That is what you ask for when you pose such a dangerous question. You ask us to choose now when the hour has not yet arrived.
As I said in another thread, all peaceful remedies have not yet been exhausted, I believe. We should organize, rally, and protest to petition government to address our grievances, and if they do not listen the first time, then try again and again if need be, but not war. We haven't even been able to do things that were done in the 1960s. We haven't even organized on a scale where we'd be able to shut down hundreds of universities and basically make dozens of cities grind to a halt with the sound of protesters in one go. If we cannot even take the first step of forming a mass opposition movement in America's streets, how can you expect to take it a step above that? (And yes, I am fully aware of the protests now, but they are simply not on the scale as they were in the past)
Only after all peaceful remedies have been exhausted will I even begin contemplating war because I do that knowing we did everything we possibly could to prevent war on American soil. I go knowing that they fired the first shot, not me.
I hope after reading what I've written and those links will you understand my position. Take this as an authoritative answer from me to your question.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #125
127. "You ask us to choose now when the hour has not yet arrived"
'First they came for the Communists....
then they came for the "incurables"...
the socialists...
the trade-unionists...
the Jews...
And when at last they came for me....'
gmoney (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #26
90. Jesus, protect me from your followers...
...found on a website saying that Star Wars is a tool of the devil, but that dancing Jesus is the key. Are these the "sacred garments" the Mormons are always on about?
Zhade (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
29. I'm not entirely sure on this.
Part says yes, part says no. So, I will kick this
leftofthedial (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
30. what about repeat offenses?
WillowTree (550 posts)
Response to Reply #30
32. Burn 'em at the stake.
That'll teach 'em!
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #30
35. Good question. I don't know.
Maybe it'd be like drinking in public, or a parking offence: same fine each time.
(1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #35
46. drinking in public in most places has an excalating penalty
I think you'd have to have some sort of escalating penalty and some sort of therapy for repeat abusers.
Many of these pathetic creatures are mentally ill.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #46
50. Does it? I didn't know.
As far as the religious-display misdemeanor goes, I'd probably be okay with any annoying-but-not-draconian penalty.
leftofthedial (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #97
98. what about public prosyletizing?
truthfully, I do not advocate the elimination of wearing religious jewelery or slogans on a t-shirt or the like. I believe in as much free speech as possible.
But what about instrusive speech, religious or political?
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #98
99. Short of blaring it through a speaker, I have the right to stand on any street corner and proselytize or speak all I want. The Constitution wasn't written to protect you from being offended.
leftofthedial (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #99
105. wrong. there are many public restrictions on speech.
I wish people could be more considerate of one another and tolerant of differing beliefs. But we are not. Therefore, we need guidelines to keep obnoxious, intrusive jerks from polluting public spaces with prosyletizing, loud music, noise, etc.
As it stands, there are public places (and should be more, in my opinion), where such behavior is not allowed. I also think there should be public spaces where such behavior IS allowed. Poet's Corner in London comes to mind.
Public spaces should be secular, religiously neutral, spaces.
The places where speechifying is allowed should not restrict (other than restrictions on hate speech, sedition, pornography, etc.) the content of such speechifying.
That way, people who want to hear you (or someone else) shout whatever they want can go there and hear it. But the rest of us don't have to.
Mairead (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #111
114. Are the BushCo 'free speech zones' in which protesters are penned
the same kind the Dems used to pen protesters during their convention, or were the Dem ones a better, Constitutionally-permissible kind?
Oregonian (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
37. Yes.
Ban 'em.
There's no need for that crap. Keep it in your churches, where it belongs.
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #37
39. I've finally figured it out....it's Pol Pot Day on DU.
Am I right? Its the only rational explanation. We celebrate Pol Pot Day by dropping our liberal beliefs and assuming the role of our "favorite" fascist!
Sounds kind of "cute", I guess, as long as its not serious. Thank goodness I can tell, that you're not serious at all. Not one bit.
It is a good example of why you cannot negotiate with the Left.
Gee, I guess Martin Luther King Day would have to be cancelled. A federal holiday for a Christian minister, who used the moral authority of his religion to change society? That must drive the libs nuts.
You're a very brave soul for venturing over to the Dark Side...I need look no farther...thanks for doing the heavy lifting.
...Methinks these folks are mentally deranged.
-Regards, t.
You're a very brave soul for venturing over to the Dark Side...I need look no farther...thanks for doing the heavy lifting.
...Methinks these folks are mentally deranged.
-Regards, t.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/crisis/05/012_ep.html
They want to cite Scripture without the context of what it means as a way of "beating" us here...
Still more idiocy from the America hating, God hating left. Is anyone surprised? Since the left is controlled by the Sodomites, who hate God, it's not surprising at all.
Oh well, when judgement is handed down, then they will realize the error of their ways. But then it will be too late for them.
Sorry for the double post. Got carried away.
-T.
You're welcome! I've been lurking around DU since election night. It's high comedy.
Regarding DUers use of Scripture, a very common refrain there is that evangelicals don't really follow Jesus' teachings because they're mean and intolerant. The DUers cite warm and fuzzy passages about love and forgiviness, but they ignore Jesus' clear claims of divinity and exclusivity as a means of access to God.
Abortion on demand and "gay marriage" are more important to much of the left than any religion. They view it is an obstacle at best.
Sad.
I don't know how I'd get through my day without knowing I'm not alone.
I don't want to force my religion on anyone.
but I want some tolerance too.
:)
"one couldn't, for example, get away with holding an impromptu service using a bullhorn in the middle of a busy intersection or in an expensive neighborhood."
And hence, 1 couldn't get away w/*any* "free speech" using a bullhorn in an intersection. Can any1 say, "spoiled-brat ignorant college-kid protest marches"? By this reasoning, we could do away w/all "free speech" cuz your group might think of holding a convention in an intersection.
"...Methinks these folks are mentally deranged."
So good, I'm glad you said it twice.
Early warning shots-- the War against Religion...
various FR links & stories | 05-06-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1397759/posts
Jesus said His followers would be hated because the world hates Him.
It is so written- keep your powder dry!
At first I thought the DUer who started this thread was merely suggesting something audacious to stir up some spirited discussion. But as I read on I concluded that she honestly believes that people of faith must be "dealt" with.
Storm clouds gather on the horizon.
I prepare myself for the coming deluge everyday.
Our Father, who art in Heaven...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.